Please note that while the author's focus was
both California and national firearms legislation, his essay is
relevant to all infringements on our Constitution and his arguments are
themselves an education in its intent and its true interpretation. —
TYSK

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE SITUATION

The Democrat-controlled government of California has recently
issued two edicts, one that bans ownership of SKS rifles with
detachable magazines and requires their surrender to the state, and one
that bans buying, selling, or lending of so-called "assault weapons"
and that requires present owners of such arms to register them. The
edicts take effect January 1, 2000. For all those who have in the past
stated that, "When the state starts confiscating guns, then I'll know
it's time to fight back," that time in California will be January 1,
2000.

Many people oppose registration because it
precedes confiscation. Indeed it does, as those who were foolish enough
to register their SKS's are now discovering. However, that is a
practical reason to oppose registration, not a legal reason.
And while avoiding confiscation is tangentially a moral reason to
oppose registration, neither is it a legal reason. Refusing to obey a
law because of what might happen or what has happened in other cases
will not stand up in court. But there is a reason not to register or
turn in any firearm that is practical, moral, and legal.

TWO QUESTIONS TO ANSWER

As regards the Second Amendment, determining the
constitutionality of the California edicts mentioned above forces the
examination of two basic questions.

One,
which arms are protected by the Second Amendment?

And two, is registration an "infringement" of
the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms?

Fortunately, answering these questions is not a difficult or
mysterious task. But they should be answered thoroughly.

WHAT IS THE BILL OF RIGHTS?

The Bill of Rights is not separate from
the Constitution
but is an integral part of it, as are all the other amendments.
However, the Bill of Rights is special in that—like sections of the
Declaration of Independence—it contains many of the core philosophical
underpinnings of our government (especially Amendments 1, 2, 9, and
10). Therefore, it is easily the most important part of the U.S.
Constitution. The rest of the Constitution, along with most of the
remaining Amendments, deals primarily with the mechanics
of putting this philosophy into effect in the form of a republic.

In the original document that we call the Bill of
Rights, the Bill's ten enumerated items are listed as
"articles". Those familiar with the history of the Constitution are
aware that these articles were not afterthoughts, but were crucial
elements whose written inclusion in the Constitution was insisted
upon before certain states would agree to ratification
of the preceding text. Because of this, a powerful case
can be made that none of these first ten articles may be modified or
revoked, because that would alter the fundamental philosophy underlying
the Constitution and would violate the original agreement among the
states.

THE
PURPOSE AND MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The
laws of the pre-U.S. colonies and the writings of the Founders clearly
reveal that they, like all civilized humans, embraced the personal,
common-law right of self-defense and property defense. The Founders'
writings, such as the Federalist
Papers, also clearly
reveal their belief that self-defense includes defending oneself
against a government gone bad. In fact the evidence shows that this
latter item is a primary reason they included the
Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and the reason for the Second
Amendment's reference to the militia—the "army of citizens" (as opposed
to the regular army).

The Second Amendment
specifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If the people
are to keep and bear them this must include, at the very minimum,
personal arms—that is, arms that a single individual may carry and
employ. For hundreds of years prior to the writing of the Constitution,
the Western world's most advanced and cherished personal arm had been
the firearm. Furthermore, the firearm is the sole arm continually
singled out in the Founders' writings. Owning firearms was a right
exercised in North America long before the existence of the United
States.

TO MEAN
ANYTHING, RIGHTS MUST INCLUDE ASSOCIATED NECESSITIES

For any given right, it is meaningless to affirm that right if
the tools or necessities of effecting that right are prohibited.
Consider our Bill of Rights:

It is
meaningless to affirm the First Amendment's right to free exercise of
religion if people are prohibited to own Bibles, Korans, or Torahs.

It is meaningless to affirm the
First Amendment's "freedom of the press" if people are prohibited to
own printing presses (or today's electronic methods of mass
communication).

It is
meaningless to affirm the Third Amendment's right to refuse to lodge a
soldier in one's home, or the Fourth Amendment's right to be secure in
one's home, if people are prohibited from owning their own home.

It is meaningless to affirm the
Sixth Amendment's right to defense counsel if people are prohibited to
use their own or public money to pay for an attorney's services.

And it is beyond meaningless—it is
absolutely absurd—to affirm the Second Amendment's right to keep and
bear arms if people are prohibited from owning arms.

Applying the above-mentioned general principle of rights to
the Second Amendment, it would be correct to state that it is
meaningless to affirm the right to self-defense
if people are prohibited from owning the tools or
necessities of self-defense.

For example, consider
elderly people, women, the physically handicapped, small-statured men,
or anyone who is not a master of unarmed combat being faced with a
large, or muscular, or armed assailant, or multiple assailants. It
happens every day in this country. It is absurd, illogical, illegal,
and inhumane to uphold their right to self-defense while prohibiting
them from owning the most portable, easy to use, proven, and
inexpensive of instantly effective self-defense tools—guns.

WHICH ARMS ARE PROTECTED BY THE SECOND
AMENDMENT?

Along with "the people",
the Second Amendment specifically mentions the militia, consisting of
armed citizens not enlisted in any regular
military corps—the "citizen army". The militia's purpose
is, as its name implies, a military one.
The militia was—and still may be—pitted against other military forces.
That was true in pre-U.S. North America, it was true during the
Revolutionary War, and it is true today.

If the
militia may be pitted against regular soldiers, whether of a foreign
invader or of a tyrannical domestic government, then it follows
automatically that at a minimum the citizens comprising the militia
must possess personal arms (as opposed to large or crew-served arms
like cannon) equal to those of the opposing soldiers.
Equal personal arms means, of course, those that include all design
features, capabilities, and ergonomics that make a military firearm
suitable for modern battle. If this is not the case then there is no
point in having a militia, as it will not pose an effective fighting
force. For example, the extreme inadequacy of bolt action rifles in
combat against semiautomatic arms is well known. But the Founders' firm
insistence upon having an effective militia is absolutely clear from
their numerous writings on the subject and from the existence of the
Second Amendment itself.

That being so,
military-pattern firearms are obviously protected by the Second
Amendment. Therefore any restrictive legislation on military-pattern
firearms, or on military design elements of other firearms, is
completely contrary to the word and spirit of the Second Amendment and
is therefore flatly unconstitutional. [U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174
(1939)completely supports this.]

REGISTRATION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH RIGHTS

Consider the situation if a state declared that it was
perfectly legal to own a Bible—or a copy of the Koran or the Talmud—
but that you had to register it in order to keep and use it. Now, what
if you did not register it—would you lose the right to own and read it?
Of course not. The very idea is absurd. Under the laws of this nation
you have the right to worship as you please. As we have seen, that
right automatically includes articles necessary or associated with the
right, such as books, crucifixes, stars of David, yarmulkes, and so
forth.

In exactly the same way, if the state
suddenly required registration of printing presses, would the owner of
a press lose his right to own or use it by not filling out a
registration form? Of course not. The right would still exist. No piece
of paper affects it.

In exactly the same way, one
does not have to register one's vocal cords, bullhorn, typewriter,
pens, pencils, computers, movie cameras, etc, to exercise the right of
free speech (or stated in modern terms, the right of uncensored
communication). Under the Constitution, if a state issued an edict
demanding registration of such things that rule would be invalid as
law. Your right to use them would still exist, completely unaffected.

In exactly the same way, prior registration of one's body,
home, address, papers, possessions, etc, is not necessary in order to
enjoy the Constitutional right to protection from unreasonable searches
and seizures of one's person, house, papers, and effects. These various
physical things are automatically included, automatically protected by
the right.

In exactly the same way, one does not
have to register anything or fill out any forms in order to have the
Constitutional right to a speedy public trial. It is automatic.

Now consider the situation if you do not
register a gun. Is the Second Amendment somehow instantly suspended?
Did it vanish? Do you somehow lose the right to keep and bear arms?
Certainly not.

If you can lose a
"right" by not filling out a piece of paper, then it is not a right.
It is a privilege granted by the
government, which is a different thing altogether. In the area of
government, a privilege is a special permission or immunity granted by
a government, it is generally related to the use of some public
facility (such as driving on the streets, or using the public library)
and it may be suspended or revoked
even for minor infractions or misdemeanors.

In
sum: Rights do not
require government registration, certification, or approval, and are
not subject to any form of taxation—otherwise they are
not rights, they are privileges granted at the discretion of the
government, controlled by the government, and revocable by the
government.

REGISTRATION
IS MORE THAN AN INFRINGEMENT

The
Second Amendment reads. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to
the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed." The question may be asked, "Is
registration of a particular gun truly such a burden that it can be
called an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms?"

To
begin with, if we were speaking of registering religious items or
communications devices, none but socialists would dare ask such a
question. Yet the Second Amendment directly follows the amendment
concerned with the free exercise of religion and freedom of the press.
The Second Amendment holds a place of priority in
the Bill of Rights, which is primarily a list of inalienable
personal rights.

But to answer the above
question—Yes. Registration is absolutely an infringement,
on at least three grounds. In fact, we will see that the rights versus
privileges issue makes registration far more than a mere infringement.

Information.

Registration of a
firearm gives the government information that can be used (and has been
used, and is being used right now) to confiscate
that firearm or to pinpoint its owner for weapon seizure, fining,
incarceration, or execution. Having the government in possession of
this information is directly contrary to the Second Amendment's intent
to ensure that citizens always possess
the means to overthrow the government should it become corrupt or
tyrannical.

Government
control.

Allowing the government to seize a
citizen's firearm, or to suspend, revoke, or diminish a citizen's
ability to defend life, family, property, and country for paperwork
omissions or errors, for regulatory violations, for minor infractions
of the law, for misdemeanors, or arguably for anything less than
conviction for a major crime of violence is also directly contrary to
the intent of the Second Amendment. This is because virtually all
citizens have committed, or will commit, one or more of the listed
non-violent errors listed above, whereas the entire point of the Second
Amendment is to place this same citizenry's right to keep and bear arms
(and therefore the right of self-defense) out
of the government's grasp.

Right Versus Privilege.

Critically
relevant to all our rights, is that any edict that attempts to convert
a right into a state-granted privilege
by imposing prior requirements—such as registration—before it may be
exercised goes far beyond mere "infringement" of that right; it
becomes an attempt at outright abrogation of the right.

Therefore the state's demand to comply with the
requirements of such an edict—no matter how physically easy compliance
is—imposes not some mere inconvenience on the individual. It imposes
the enormous moral, ethical, intellectual, and spiritual burden of denying
the existence of the right.

It does
not matter if the state demands that one simply tap one's nose five
times in succession in order to be able to keep and bear a particular
gun. This would still be a state-mandated prior requirement. Compliance
would indicate tacit denial of the validity of the Second Amendment,
and denial of the right it protects. Compliance would
encompass an implicit acceptance of the
right as a mere privilege, which is directly contrary to both the
letter and spirit of the Second Amendment.

APPLYING THESE CONCEPTS TO CALIFORNIA'S EDICT

The argument against registration of, and restrictions on,
military-style firearms may be approached by two logical paths that
reach the same conclusions:

If the
supreme law of the nation protects a personal right to keep and bear
arms (which it does) then the failure to comply with a state mandate to
fill out some registration form cannot revoke this, or any other,
right. If the right to keep and bear arms cannot be revoked (and it can
not be), then the right to keep and bear militia arms, which are the
very arms implicitly referred to in the Founders' writings and in the
Second Amendment itself, cannot be revoked. If the right to keep and
bear militia arms cannot be revoked (and it can not be) then we may own
and use any military-pattern individually portable firearm, all of
which are practical militia arms. If that is the case (and it is), then
any restrictive legislation based on militarily useful design elements
of such firearms is flatly unconstitutional.

If the supreme law of the nation protects the personal right
to keep and bear arms (which it does), then the right to keep and bear
militia arms, which are the very arms implicitly referred to in the
Founders' writings and in the Second Amendment itself, certainly
exists. If that is the case (and it is), then we may own and use any
military-pattern individually portable firearm, because all are
practical militia arms. If that is the case (and it is), any
restrictive legislation based on the militarily useful design elements
of such firearms is flatly unconstitutional. If that is the case (and
it is), then the failure to comply with a state mandate to fill out
some registration form cannot revoke this right.

Again, the same situation prevails with all
the personal rights in the Bill of Rights. That is, no state mandate
requiring registration—either of oneself or of things directly
associated with a right—can be a prerequisite or condition of
exercising a right, nor can it affect that right in any way. If it
does, then the right has been unconstitutionally
declared a state-controlled privilege.

SUMMARY

As
we see from the above, no American can be legally compelled to register
any militarily useful individual arm. That includes pistols, revolvers,
carbines, semi-autos, military-style guns, hunting guns, self-defense
guns, pump guns, lever guns, bolt guns, black powder guns, scoped guns,
.50 caliber guns, .338 caliber guns, .30 caliber guns, .223 caliber
guns, etc. All have been used, or are being used, as individual
military arms, and therefore are implicitly referred to by the Second
Amendment's militia clause.

Moreover, no American
can be legally compelled to register any firearm of common design or
function because the Second Amendment does not protect only guns that
are useful in military affairs; it protects all guns. The militia
reference is clearly meant as one important reason for protecting the
right which follows: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The
Second Amendment says simply "arms", which imposes no quantity or
design limits. It says "bear", which in its narrowest sense would still
include all firearms capable of being carried and used by one person.

Therefore, under the supreme law of the land, the right to own
one or several of any type of individually portable firearm exists permanently,
inherently, automatically, without prior approval or
conditions.

RELATED
ISSUES

The single
debatable exception to the above would be fully automatic firearms
having reasonable restrictions, but not an outright ban, placed upon
them. Being a highly specific, highly moot case, this subject will not
and need not be, addressed here.

All
indiscriminate weapons—those whose effects are difficult to direct
upon, or confine to, a discrete target (such as flamethrowers,
fragmentation bombs, chemical and biological weapons, mortars) etc.—are
arguably excludable from the protection of the Second Amendment as
posing an unreasonable danger to friend and foe alike.

But absolutely no individually portable firearm of common design or
function may be determined to pose such an unreasonable danger. This is
because a ban on such a firearm could "logically" be extended to all
other firearms of similar design and function (exactly what is
occurring with California's SKS edict now), which would completely
vitiate the Second Amendment. Thus, the 1994 Federal "assault weapon"
ban and magazine capacity limit are both completely unconstitutional.

The issue of a firearms seller
determining the legal status of a potential buyer is separable from the
issue of registration, and need not be dealt with here. Suffice it to
say that the primary legal principle involved is declaring it a crime
to sell or give a firearm to anyone who is legally—that is, legal in
accordance with Constitution—prohibited from owning a firearm.
Registration need not be, and may not Constitutionally be, part of any
firearm sale or transfer.

REGISTRATION--YOUR DECISION AFFECTS ALL
RIGHTS

If a military
pattern firearm, the firearm most suited to the militia
mentioned in the Second Amendment, is not protected by the clear
wording of the Second Amendment, then there is no meaning to the Second
Amendment. If there is no meaning to the Second Amendment, there is no
reason to infer meaning in the rest of the Bill of Rights.

If
converting the Second Amendment into a privilege
by means of a registration edict is not the maximum "infringement" of
that right, then nothing is.

If converting the
Second Amendment into a privilege by means of an edict is possible,
then it is possible to do so for any other right.

Therefore, regarding the Second Amendment, refusing
registrationaffirms the right to
own a militia firearm. It affirms the right to
keep and bear all personal arms. It affirms the
validity of the rest of the Bill of Rights. It affirms
that attempting to convert the Second Amendment into a privilege is the
maximum infringement of that right. It rejects a
state's power to convert any right into a privilege. And lastly it affirms
the validity of the Constitution, and the rule of law, not men.

DEMANDING OR COMPLYING
WITH REGISTRATION IS BETRAYAL

Article
VI of the Constitution designates the Constitution as the supreme law
of the United States, and specifically states that it prevails
over all state constitutions and statutes. Further,
Article VI requires all legislative, executive, and judicial officers
of the U.S. government and of the state governments to take an oath to obey
the Constitution. Some of these officials may hate firearms and the
power they give to the citizenry, but that is irrelevant—they
must treat the Second Amendment as they would the rest of our Bill of
Rights.

All state officials—judges,
representatives, law enforcement officials—know these facts, but many
are corrupt and ignore them. Their sworn word means nothing to them,
nor does the Constitution, nor do the rights of the constituents for
whom they work unless it suits their own political agenda. It is
against this conscienceless species of human
that decent Americans must continually fight, in California and in the
rest of the United States.

If you believe you have
the right to keep and bear proper militia arms in order to defend
yourself, your family, your home, and your country, and if you believe
this right is recognized in the Bill of Rights, then you cannot
register or turn in any firearm whatsoever. You may rationalize it any
way you wish, but if you register a firearm you are implicitly
agreeing with the proposition that your right to own that firearm is
nonexistent, and that such ownership is dependent upon permission from
the government. Registration equals betrayal
of yourself, your family, your ancestors, your birthright, your
country, and your Constitution. Period.

A PERSONAL POSITION

Every
new illegal gun control edict issued, and every day that existing
illegal gun control edicts continue to be enforced, brings inexhorably
closer the time when firearms owners will train their guns on the
politicians, judges, and other officials who have misled the rest of
the public into giving up their sacred and ancient rights. A
desire to avoid this terrible tragedy motivates my own actions
regarding the Second Amendment and the rights it protects.

For
nearly twenty years I have legally owned a militia rifle possessing the
characteristics of the socialists' so-called "assault weapon". Now my
right to own this arm, a right that has existed far longer than the two
centuries-plus that this nation has existed, is suddenly being
challenged by corrupt politicians. But I vehemently reject any
infringement of my rights. I will never register this or any other
firearm. Nor will I ever turn it in, nor will I ever alter any
characteristic or attachment to it. I will never again concern myself
with legislation about pistol grips, bayonet lugs, high-capacity
magazines, flash suppressors, threaded barrels, folding stocks, pre- or
post-ban manufacture, or any other irrelevant detail of my firearms.

I will certainly not do as the NRA Members Councils suggest on
their internet site, which is to saw off the pistol grip of one's
AR-style rifle to make it "legal". Understand this: in America it is
already legal. I sometimes wonder whether the socialists will issue an
edict requiring all firearms to have a pink ribbon tied to the barrel,
just to get a belly laugh as the panicked descendants of once-proud
American patriots scurry to comply.

California's
current governor, attorney general, and legislators who voted for these
edicts can undoubtedly find thugs as corrupt and anti-American as
themselves to send to my home. I vow not to physically interfere with
their illegal activities, because I wish to see this matter in court. I
hope that other men and women will join me in this public declaration
of civil disobedience, because it would be best to have ten thousand
civil disobedience cases in court, not just mine. But I understand why,
in this day and age of brutal, ethics-free "public servants"; citizens
are reluctant to make themselves a target of the state. Fortunately,
the citizens of California and other states demanding registration can
strike a powerful blow for humanity simply by refusing to comply.

SEIZE THIS OPPORTUNITY

To those of you who whine, complain, and talk, talk, talk
about your loss of freedom—I say now is the time to do something. There
are few times in an average man's life when the occasion presents
itself to take part in history. Here and now is such a time. This
refusal to submit to tyranny is not simply about firearms.
It is about human rights, it is about the rule of law, and it is about
the continuance of this great nation. To what better use will you ever
put you life than to stand up for these things? Will you look back on
this moment and say, "I wish I had done something", or will you step
forward and seize this chance?

With the government
having grown so powerful and corrupt, defying it is frightening. It is
especially frightening because many Americans seem fairly content right
now. But the feelings of the apathetic mass are irrelevant. They have
never figured in history, and never will. The apathetic mass will go
along with whatever system exists. It is the freedom-loving individual
who, although part of a much smaller group, has guided every free
nation toward the light.

Freedom
is not maintained without taking risks and making sacrifices, without
fighting for it. This has always been true, throughout history. If you
are afraid to take a stand against this tyrannical government, if you
excuse yourself by saying you must "take care of my family first", I
say thank God there were men in the past who understood the priority of
freedom.

Look at your children.
Is it more important that they have an uninterrupted flow of plastic
toys and the soft luxuries of modern American life, or that they grow
up as free men and women, with all inherent rights and
responsibilities? I say any man who does nothing while even a single
basic freedom he has enjoyed is stripped from his offspring—a freedom
secured by the blood of others—deserves no offspring.

As
I said, I will turn in no firearms, ever. I will register no firearms,
ever. My right to own and use firearms predates the Constitution. It
existed before the corrupt socialists in Washington and Sacramento came
to office, and it will exist forever afterward. The Second Amendment
simply recognizes this right. I do not know where my civil disobedience
will lead, but I am certain where the slavishness and cowardice of
compliance will lead. I refuse to take part in this foul business of
registration. I hope that you refuse also. If we stand together we will
set fires of freedom burning across America.

Mr. Puckett
has many articles archived at

If ye love
wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than
the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not
your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye
were our countrymen. — Samuel Adams, speech at the
Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.